What Victor Davis Hanson Neglects to Say About Pearl Harbor

Once again, historian and conservative pundit Victor Davis Hanson feels the need to play whack-a-mole with World War II revisionism. Whenever it rears its ugly mug in mainstream society—often thanks to a free-thinking guest on Tucker Carlson’s podcast—Hanson dutifully reinforces the official, government-approved account of how the United States entered the war.  According to the narrative, President Franklin Roosevelt abhorred war and reluctantly entered the global conflict only after his hand was forced by the nefarious Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Most recently, Hanson posted a ten-minute video entitled “America Didn’t Provoke Japan—Here’s What Really Led to Pearl Harbor” on his Daily Signal YouTube channel. In it he does not even attempt to refute revisionism; he merely assures his viewers that revisionists are wrong, as if that alone would do the trick. The vast swaths of revisionist evidence he neglects to mention speaks either to his incompetence, dishonesty, or both. He also fails to describe revisionism beyond what he put in his video’s title—that revisionists believe the US provoked Japan, and not the other way around. His efforts are so tired and lame that, in rebuking him like this, I almost feel guilty for beating up on an old man.

Yet I must—despite the fact that I appreciate most of his takes not involving World War II or the Jewish Question. If revisionism needs to go down, then let it go down after a fair fight. Unfortunately, Hanson does not offer one, and thus cannot be allowed to run victory laps after exploiting the ignorance of his audience and telling them that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor “for no reason.”

[G]iven that we’re in the era of revisionism, especially about World War II, I think it’s wise if we just review what Pearl Harbor was about. Remember, the United States was not at war. The war had broken out in Europe on September 1st, 1939. So all of the last four months of 39, all of 40 and most of 41 . . . the United States had watched the Germans absorb most of Western Europe and the Balkans and had been in Russia. And at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, they were at the gates of Moscow, literally at the first subway station. So it seemed that they would take Russia. Meanwhile, the Japanese had done two things. They had invaded China again a second time in 1937, and they had half of what is now China under Japanese control in addition to . . . what is now South and North Korea.

And remember that the European colonial powers, the Netherlands and France had ceased to exist as independent countries. So their colonial possessions in the Pacific, specifically the bread basket of Asia in the Mekong Delta of Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, were no longer under independent French control. And the Japanese had absorbed them. But more importantly, what is now Indonesia, then called the Dutch East Indies, the Dutch had control of these islands. They were very rich in oil. The Dutch Shell Oil Company had substantial oil wells on there and the Japanese wanted to absorb those. It was that context that they attacked us. We didn’t attack them.

Hanson then contends that the Japanese had claimed they wanted peace while plotting war. He also implies that the United States had the right to check Japanese expansion because the territories they were conquering did not belong to them. This justified the oil embargo FDR leveled against them because “we had no other mechanism to convince them to get out of China.” This made America the innocent victim on December 7th, 1941.

It’s a nice story from an American viewpoint, but is it true? Revisionists say no. And if Victor Davis Hanson ever wants to convince someone even slightly acquainted with revisionism about the innocence of FDR, he should first mention the main proponents of revisionism and describe their works. These include Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, George Morgenstern, William Henry Chamberlain, Charles Tansill, and others. Then he will need to address the following points (all raised by Barnes in Barnes Against the Blackout, published in 1991 by the Institute of Historical Review), which threaten the accepted narrative about Pearl Harbor:

1. Did FDR, at his very first cabinet meeting in March 1933, not float the idea of war with Japan as a way to end the Great Depression? (pp. 72, 87)
2. Did the US not pressure Chiang Kai-shek of China to provoke the Japanese prior to the fighting at the Marco Polo Bridge in July 1937? (p. 89)
3. Did the Japanese in late 1940 not offer to retreat back to Manchuria if given, in the words of Barnes, “a little time and a face-saving formula” only to have the offer contemptuously rejected by FDR? (p. 85)
4. Did Secretary of War Henry Stimson not write of the Japanese thirteen days before Pearl Harbor, “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (p. 213)
5. Did Roosevelt and Winston Churchill not plot America’s “backdoor to war” through Japan when they met in Newfoundland in August 1941? (p. 91)

After this Hanson must address the following points raised by Navy veteran Robert Stinnett in his 1999 work Day of Deceit which all but proves that FDR goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor:

1. Did the Eight-Point McCollum Memorandum, written in October 1940, not outline the strategy the US employed during the 14-month lead up to the attack? (p. 6-10)
2. Did US cryptoanalysis not break Japanese codes and reveal that US forces knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it? (pp. 21-23, 226–229)
3. Was Pacific Fleet Commander Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel not kept in the dark regarding this cryptoanalysis? (pp. 66-67, 79-81, 223)
4. Were there not 129 intercepts of Japanese naval communication between November 15 and December 6, 1941, which busted the myth of Japanese “radio silence” as their ships sailed towards Pearl Harbor? (p. 208-210)

Hanson should keep in mind that these nine points come from a mere two sources and represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Pearl Harbor revisionism. Of course, it would be unreasonable to ask him to debunk it all in one YouTube video, but it would be (and was) equally unreasonable for him to attempt  to debunk it all without the slightest mention of the these or any other revisionist points. Barnes describes this high-handed approach as one of the methods used by the “court historians” of his day to deal with revisionists: they “overlook the decisive evidence which would overthrow their basic thesis.”

I am not arguing that the Japanese were completely blameless or always told the truth or did not commit atrocities. Hanson makes it clear how lethal, cruel, and expansionist the Japanese armed forces were. One can argue that this was reason enough for America’s entry into the war. Despite documenting all the skullduggery surrounding the Pearl Harbor cover-up, Stinnett himself justifies the subterfuge and exonerates FDR and his people for committing it.

This, of course, does not refute revisionism. One can espouse a revisionist view of history and America’s entry into World War II at the same time. It would just require a good deal of study and thought—which Stinnett undoubtedly put in. The problem is that for the vast majority of people (who don’t think and study as much as Stinnett did), supporting America’s entry into the war would be a lot easier if the revisionists were wrong and the court historians were correct. This is where history becomes political. Victor Davis Hanson, despite his conservative bone fides, wants to maintain the founding myth of modern liberalism—that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were the embodiment of evil, and anyone who had truck with them were evil as well. Given the highly disproportionate control Jews have over almost every aspect of Western culture and politics these days, this founding myth must not be challenged, truth be damned. Pearl Harbor revisionism, if left unchecked, has two uncomfortable outcomes for such people: it humanizes the Japanese, and it leads to D-Day revisionism, which could result in humanizing the Nazis and Adolf Hitler as well. And this terrifies the Jews.

To prevent this from happening, Hanson simply sweeps revisionism under the rug and does not dignify it with a counter argument. To those who actually pay attention to him, however, this is hardly convincing. Here is Hanson discussing Pearl Harbor in August of this year, giving his halfhearted approval of revisionism (emphasis mine):

I do know that FDR ordered in May of 1940, Admiral Richardson, the head of the Seventh Fleet, to move the base in San Diego all the way to Pearl Harbor. And he said, “I’m putting my head in a noose. The Seventh Fleet is not able to deter the Japanese Imperial Fleet in the Pacific. If you put me way out in the middle of nowhere in Hawaii, I will not have the infrastructure, the air support that I would have in San Diego.” And he kept complaining and they relieved him. Then Admiral Kimmel took over and he was relieved of command. I think 3 weeks afterwards, he was the fall guy. And out of that came a conspiracy that Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions, putting us out very vulnerable so we would be attacked. There may be some truth to that, but the idea that there’s a big untold story of Pearl Harbor is not true. We pretty much know that Roosevelt wanted to get in the war sooner or later. He felt that Europe would fall and he underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy, but he didn’t plan to have Pearl Harbor attacked.

Hanson’s viewers should ask him the following question: If there is “some truth” to the idea that “Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions,” why is he now claiming that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor “for no reason?”

Victor Davis Hanson can’t have it both ways.